IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Fri, 06 September 2013 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DB511E81E1 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.612
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFwVoH4nrpHF for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B340611E818C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail55-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.241) by CO9EHSOBE036.bigfish.com (10.236.130.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:57:58 +0000
Received: from mail55-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail55-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A61B200123; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:57:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.249.85; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:AMSPRD0710HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -16
X-BigFish: PS-16(zz9371I119bI542I1418I4015Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzc2hz8275ch1de098h1033IL1de097h186068h8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h839h947hd24hf0ah1177h1179h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h184fh1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1e23h304l1d11m1155h)
Received: from mail55-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail55-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1378468676699195_27423; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:57:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.227]) by mail55-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64DB980040; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:57:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AMSPRD0710HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.249.85) by CO9EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (10.236.130.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:57:56 +0000
Received: from AMXPRD0310HT003.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.56.248.133) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.255.160.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.353.4; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:57:34 +0000
Message-ID: <086101ceaaf8$2223b5a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, mpls@ietf.org
References: <b6b1056dd49f43499369f958480e6df2@BLUPR05MB070.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:53:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.248.133]
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%JUNIPER.NET$RO%1$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, loa@mail01.huawei.com
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:58:17 -0000

Messy

We end up with a better IANA registry but with worse underlying RFC,
since this updates seven of them, making it harder to find the current
status of the MPLS standards, and we already have an awful lot of MPLS
RFC interacting with each other.

Is there a half-way house which gives us most of the benefit with fewer
updates?

And this hits PWE3 so I think that they should be polled as well.

On balance, I do not support this.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; <loa@mail01.huawei.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: [mpls] Poll for Adoption
draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02


This is to start a "two week" poll on adopting
draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02
as an MPLS working group document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>).

This poll will end September 20, 2013.

Thanks, Ross




------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email